Men: Marry A Zealot

Note: this is the second installment in a series of posts where I dispense advice to my pre-adolescent sons. Advice that I wish I would have had in my youth.

A little-z zealot, that is.

My checkered past features a four-year time span of acute unhappiness, bookended on the left by a surprise divorce that I didn’t see coming, and on the right when I was introduced to and eventually wed Mrs. Wapiti.

It’s been nearly 10 years since I first faced those dark and terrible days, and the memory of that bitter experience motivates me to share the lessons I had to learn the hard way.

One of those hard-won lessons was, duh, don’t be unequally yoked.* That should have went without saying, but I was frankly quite ignorant and arrogant in my youth, the way high-achieving young folks can be. The other lesson was: marry a woman who is hard core about her faith.

There are a couple of reasons why I advise my sons and my fellow men to marry hard-core believers. First, is has been my consistent observation that in today’s world, with women armed as they are with so many choices, choices that include whether a man’s child escapes the uterus intact and whether a man gets to participate in the rearing of his own seed, indeed whether he remains free or is sold into a state of semi-slavery, a woman’s locus of control becomes paramount. If she is internally controlled, as I’ve observed most women are, then her actions will be primarily driven by whim. Or biochemistry. Or modern chemistry. Or even a dartboard. Whatever heuristic a woman uses to govern her actions, if she peers inside herself to determine what to do and where to go, run, don’t walk away. Such women is but a leaf in the autumn wind. Who knows where the air currents will take her, and by extension, where the man tied to such a woman finds himself.

Hard core Believers, on the other hand, are externally governed. Their locus of control tends to be directed outside themselves, toward a fixed point that doesn’t move. In the case of Believers, that fixed point is Scripture and the Holy Spirit, and women whose decision tree starts and ends there are a whole lot less likely to follow their Game-manipulable lizard hind brain into situations which their hamster must then rationalize away.

So how does one differentiate the externally controlled few from the internally controlled masses? By her claims to be a committed Christian? Bzzzt! If the metaphorical red pill has taught modern men anything about women, it is to put greater stock in a woman’s actions than her words.

This brings me to the second reason why I advise men to marry zealots: they take their faith seriously. A seriousness that is reflected in their church/synagogue attendance rates. And it turns out that said attendance rates are highly correlated with marital success. Read on:

“Christians divorce at roughly the same rate as the world!”

It’s one of the most quoted stats by Christian leaders today. And it’s perhaps one of the most inaccurate.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes – attend church nearly every week, read their bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples – enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers.

That’s the text. But the adjusted-for-race-and-income data practically shouts from the rooftops (negative numbers represent percent less likely to divorce):

Looking at the data, one thing is very clear. Those that are serious about their faiths stand a significantly lower risk of marital disruption than those that are not. Fine. This is great news, but not the end of the story, for what I also find very interesting about this table is that those who dabble in their faiths, those who are neither hot nor cold, are the ones setting themselves up for failure the most…+20 for Protestants, -5 for Catholics, and a whopping +53 for Jews.

My advice for my sons and my fellow brothers is this: find and marry a woman who is zealous about her faith, a zealotry that is demonstrated by her actions. For an obedience and submission to Christ portends well for her ability to follow your lead in marriage. Granted, such women may be hard to find in this day and age, but if a fellow dares to marry, and I think some fellows should,** her worth will be far more than rubies.

* I was a nominal Protestant at the time, paired with an east-Coast (i.e. lib/fem) nominal “jack” Catholic. Uh-oh.

** I think that only Believing men should marry. Non believers should avoid Marriage 2.0 religiously, if you pardon the pun.

It is very important these days to differentiate between people with a general and cultural profession of faith and those who live what they believe.

Far too often, the consternation heaped on the church concerning divorce and the disdain directed toward “even Christian girls” in some parts of the ‘net fail to recognize that “the tree is known by its fruit” not by it’s profession.

“If she is internally controlled, as I’ve observed most women are, then her actions will be primarily driven by whim. Or biochemistry. Or modern chemistry. Or even a dartboard.”

That is funny, but disturbingly true.

“externally governed. Their locus of control tends to be directed outside themselves, toward a fixed point that doesn’t move. In the case of Believers, that fixed point is Scripture and the Holy Spirit,”

Forgive me for speaking on behalf of Elusive Wapiti who’ll be away for a while, but I would have to assume that as a person demonstrates a zealous adherence to sound principles and beliefs in character and behavior outside of his or her self, then a potential mate whose foundation is the same would find a good marriage partner in that person, since they are equally yoked and equally devout. This sentence explains it well I think:

“externally governed. Their locus of control tends to be directed outside themselves, toward a fixed point that doesn’t move.”

Since this is a site firmly committed to the Christian perspective, and the writer of this post is a devout believer in the unique power of the Christian gospel to transform a life, offer a firm foundation for this life and security in the next, then he wrote his post from that point of view. Given that most of the readers and commenters are Christians, we heartily agreed with his piece.

That said, of course a devout, Orthodox Jewish man should make every effort to choose a wife who is as zealously devoted to the faith as he is, in action and not just words. Ditto Confucian conservatism, etc. The key factor being making every effort to avoid being unequally yoked.

Keep in mind whenever you read this site that the moderators and many of the writers here are committed to the Truth of Christianity in all points. And yes, that it is a superior and more excellent faith (Christians are not alone in that, BTW). This is not to denigrate what others believe, but our faith is not one given to moderate or lukewarm ways of looking at the issues of life. Or wavering on what are the ultimate answers to those issues.

Furthermore, we respect people of strong conviction no matter what those convictions are so long as they can present their views in a coherent fashion. Belief in something besides materialism and feelings is so rare that I have learned to appreciate sincerity even when I disagree with the person’s perspective. We only ask that our firm conviction in the Truth of Christianity be equally respected.

I do hope you stick around and join the conversation. There are many agnostics and seekers who read and comment.

Welcome aboard, Wapiti! Good post. When I got met my wife I was an atheist and could be fairly obnoxious about it. She wasn’t devout at the time, but she did refuse to put credence in my arguments. Eventually her position won out.

Good analysis. I would add that faithful attendance in a progressive heretical church is a bad thing. The lack in adherence to principles is worse than having no faith. Fluffy bunny Christianity fails.

“Hard core Believers, on the other hand, are externally governed. Their locus of control tends to be directed outside themselves, toward a fixed point that doesn’t move. In the case of Believers, that fixed point is Scripture and the Holy Spirit,”

Yes, this is the important thing in looking for a mate. Just as it is easier to find your way in the wilderness when you have a compass to show you which was is north so it is easier to walk through this world of conflicting noises and ideas when you have the true north of God’s Word to give direction.

I’m a bit more zealous than my husband, but it helps a lot that we’re both Catholic. So he might not pray the Rosary with me or run off to confession every few months, but he doesn’t think it’s “weird” that I do it because it’s part of his own faith tradition. We go to Mass together, we discuss the Catholic newspaper’s articles and listen to Catholic radio together, we fast during Lent together and do the Stations of the Cross, our children are going to be educated in our faith, etc.

I think that commonality is important, and infatuated young people discount it out of ignorance. If nothing else, once you have children a lot of your social life will revolve around religion, so it’s best to belong to the same religious community.

I certainly don’t want to marry someone from outside my own faith tradition, even if they are a fellow traditionalist confessional Protestant, e.g. a Lutheran. Why? Simple: Commonality makes for harmony; difference makes for discord; I’m not going to change my faith tradition for a woman, and I’m too lazy to want to go to the trouble to try to change someone else to suit me, nor would I trust they did it genuinely, for themselves rather than to be with me.

This article is a good reminder why character is(and always has been) critical when selecting a spouse – and why a wife with a strong Christian ethic is priceless.

I have little sympathy for a Christian man who fails to properly vet his future wife and feels blindsided when the marriage is headed for failure. There are ample opportunities during the courting phase to flesh out character defects(even without being too specific with questions). This basically comes down to what EW describes as putting “greater stock in a woman’s actions than her words.” Unfortunately, too many men, including Christians, don’t heed these sometimes subtle warnings to back off or get the hell out. They are largely the authors of their own misery.

“Hm…what would you say about marrying a man (or a woman for that matter) whose locus of control is Confucian conservatism?”

I think Terri pretty much nailed it with her comment, but I would like to reinforce my take away from the article, and that was devout belief (as expressed by worship attendance, etc.) is positively correlated with the durability of marriage. I underscore the importance of being unequally yoked wrt faith traditions…even two faiths as closely related as Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have friction points that the devout find difficult to square.

As Alte said, “interfaith marriages tend to do rather badly”. And my personal experience bears this out.

One of the more harmful notions our modern society likes to propagate is that “opposites attract”. They may in the short run, but in the long run, I have found that it is similarity that keeps a couple together.

Last, while the study referenced in this post claimed to control for race, class, ethnicity, and income, I too am intrigued at the very large difference between the divorce rate of devout Catholics/Protestants and “active” (presumably Orthodox) Jews. Ideology or demography? A good question.

even two faiths as closely related as Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have friction points that the devout find difficult to square.

This. And if people are truly devout than they REALLY mean it and won’t want to compromise on practicing their faith or passing it on to their children. We have an interfaith blog, but that’s a far cry from an interfaith house.

Interfaith marriages tend to do rather badly, even if the spouses are equally zealous

Congratulations, I now have an excuse to avoid dating the vast majority of black women in the United States. OTOH, it also means that plans to marry a high IQ Jewish woman to boost my kid’s chances of becoming a part of the elite will fail miserably.

Congratulations, I now have an excuse to avoid dating the vast majority of black women in the United States.

Whoever said you should marry a black woman, DA?

Of course, your plans to marry a high IQ Jewish woman may not be off the table because you’re no more devout than she would probably be. Most liberal Jews aren’t.

And while Elusive Wapiti wrote this to men from a male perspective, it could just as easily have been addressed to women. Ergo, you can put your lukewarm faith with your wife’s lukewarm faith and voila!

I would think that a man marrying a zealot would end up in a relationship going badly for the following reasons:

1. A zealot wife could turn out to be more traditional. We all know how bad that is.
2. A zealot wife could have different ideas on how to raise the children religiously compared to her husband. Catholic school? How and when to do confirmation? What about camp? These can become sources of contention.
3. I would think that when a wife and husband have different views on faith practices, children would pick up on these.
4. Marrying a zealot wife could make wifely obedience REALLY interesting.
5. Shouldn’t a man be more of a zealot in the first place, especially if he is to lead?

Alte noted that interfaith marriages tend to have a high rate of failure, and as a black Catholic, I’d have to dismiss a sizable bit of the black female population because they’re Protestants…

because you’re no more devout than she would probably be

It’s interesting that you note that. To somebody like Athena who doesn’t go to church at all, I’m religious because I try and attend on nearly every Sunday. In contrast, to the people here, I’m a dirty secularist, and in that light, it makes far more sense to view myself as a dirty secularist who goes to mass in lieu of somebody that follows the teachings as closely as say Alte or Maitre Collard. I suspect that are many like me, some of which operate on guilt, but somehow, that guilt is rather selective in terms of its operation.

Guilty as charged: I’m female, and used to believe “man = bad, woman = good”. Conventional wisdom, hooboy! Family history changed me: 2 beloved relatives taken to the cleaners by faithless wives. You mean, women can be shamelessly bad?!? Both men married again, being careful to choose devout Christian women. Success! Coincidence? Nope!

My husband is just completely thrown off. Before I was feminist, a Protestant, anti-headcovering, that sort of stuff.

Now I freak when I forget my pashmina or scarf, I pray the rosary, I blab about The Catholic Spirit, I also blab about other parishes I’ve visited, and lately my disdain for our current lukewarm church comes out but I have held my tongue for the most part.

I also remind him how much I dislike contraceptives and he dismisses me. LOL.

I don’t necessarily think that a fellow necessarily need be more zealous than his bride. It’s not a “urinary olympics”, anyway…

I understand what EW is saying here. A truly devout woman takes her responsibility to submit to her husband’s leadership seriously whether he is devout or not. At least that was my experience during the years in our marriage when I was a believer and my husband was not. I took this Scriptural admonition to heart and I lived it even when it was hard:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and [a]respectful behavior 1 peter 3:1-2

My husband rarely (never?) put me in a position to choose because I kept to the Scriptures rather than religious dogma that many people claim the Bible implies. Thank God he was always a man of strong character even as an unbeliever. He was a sinner, but a man of conviction who appreciated my adherence to my own convictions. I really don’t know how women handle it when their husbands ask them to do things that are clearly sinful.

That said, the Scriptural command to marry a person of like faith extends to men and women alike.

I forgot to add, that would eliminate the submission issues because the wife could obey her husband without feeling like she had to “choose.”

I’m glad you added that because I was about to point out that lack of submission is no more about the husband than lack of leadership is about the wife. Wives submit of their own volition out of obedience to God not as a result of their husband’s zealotry.

But I think you implied that in your follow up comment. It bears noting though because a zealous husband married to a lukewarm, rebellious wife isn’t going to have an easy time of it simply because he’s devout. Which brings us back to not being unequally yoked.

In cases like mine, where we started out equally yoked in unbelief until I converted, my obedience to the command to submit to my husband ended up being good for our marriage even as he was on a different path.

Good post, Elusive Wapiti. Yep, this is the advice that young men like me need. Thank you.

“** I think that only Believing men should marry. Non believers should avoid Marriage 2.0 religiously, if you pardon the pun.”

Haha, agreed. Most of my friends are affiliated with some sort of church but they don’t go and they don’t really care. Most of them just go around and ONS and those that don’t have a string of STRs. In this environment, that is the smartest thing to do. However, I plan on getting married because I’m a Believer.

“Before I was feminist, a Protestant, anti-headcovering, that sort of stuff.”

Interesting. I was always a conservative of some sort, but it was more of a reflexive conservatism than a ideological one. I was born a chauvinist and an ethno-trad and I always thought that feminism and liberalism was a load of shit. Everytime I heard crap about how “teh gurls are ewalz tooooo” I felt the unbearable stench of pure, unadulterated bullshit climb right up into my nostrils.

I was not a bait and switch (rolls eyes). I never thought in my life I would ever be an anti-feminist, not in my wildest dreams. My husband is a cradle Catholic.

My attempts at being funny seem to fail increasingly at an alarming rate…

Regardless, it’s a bit odd to marry a woman that’s feminist and a Protestant, and end up with her being rather traditional and far more invested into my faith than myself. Hell, one could argue that it’s invitation to trouble in the future when serious issues are at play.

Everytime I heard crap about how “teh gurls are ewalz tooooo” I felt the unbearable stench of pure, unadulterated bullshit climb right up into my nostrils.

In contrast, I swallowed it. If God didn’t make women equal to men, then God is either some questionable creator that may have no idea of what he was doing, or God doesn’t exist, or the inequality between the sexes is a work of Satan, and achieving equality is simply our way of defeating evil.

Not surprising. Some people are made to swallow shit. I guess that they are important in some way to the bigger picture as repulsive as they are. Kinda like cockroaches. If there weren’t any cockroaches who would eat the trash?

“If God didn’t make women equal to men, then God is either some questionable creator that may have no idea of what he was doing,”

Seems that Lucifer felt the same way when he wasn’t ekwaaal to God. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuu huuuuuuuuuu, Deo Pater pulled back his leg and kicked that whiny, annoying bitch out.

“or God doesn’t exist,”

Perhaps. From a logical perspective, it’s either G. K. Chesterton or Alternative Right.

“or the inequality between the sexes is a work of Satan, and achieving equality is simply our way of defeating evil.”

Haha, yeaaaah. That assertion is totally backed up by Scripture…. oh wait! IT ISN’T.

There is only one way in which people are equal—in terms of their intrinsic value to their Creator. That’s it. I can point you to people who ‘have it all’—in terms of any metric you care to make—good looking, very smart, persuasive, healthy, and not even particularly arrogant, and I can point you to their inverses. God doesn’t give a damn about our idea of ‘fairness’. He’s not some gamemaster of a point-based roleplaying game that enforces everyone being given the same number of points to build their character. He can and does give His gifts solely according to His Pleasure.
Of course if you don’t believe in a Creator, to get to equality, you have to deny all of the evidence of your senses regarding the equality of individuals and groups with respect to each other.

“There is only one way in which people are equal—in terms of their intrinsic value to their Creator. That’s it.”

Yes. We are all equal in our humanity.

“Of course if you don’t believe in a Creator, to get to equality, you have to deny all of the evidence of your senses regarding the equality of individuals and groups with respect to each other.”

Exactly. It’s not like equality even exists within the Natural World. HBD, anyone? Nature favors the strong over the weak and if there is no God than it makes sense for us, as a society, to favor the strong over the weak in the same manner the Spartans and the other old pagans would.

I was engaged to an Anglican girl and it did cause (extra) problems. We split up and didn’t marry. My wife was nominally a Catholic when I met her. I was more zealous and I think I led her back to a stronger faith, not without leading her astray morally a bit sometimes. She has not really followed me into Tradition though (Latin Mass). She is generally pretty compliant, but I think that is more natural than theological.

She was the one who got us to go recently to the Pauline Monastery outside Sydney, which has numerous chapels for the different Catholic ethnic groups. She came back with a bottle of holy water. She made me laugh by putting some on a cumquat she thinks is dying. I think women are more spiritual and superstitious than men, but not necessarily more religious. I am the “family theologian”.

One should go to confession regularly, but I only end up going every couple of months, when I have done something seriously wrong.

Haha, that is funny. I have noticed that women are like that. I’m an religious but I am not very superstitious or spiritual. I guess that I lean more towards the Ethnotrad and Calvinist-types than I do the Charismatic-type.

But I think you implied that in your follow up comment. It bears noting though because a zealous husband married to a lukewarm, rebellious wife isn’t going to have an easy time of it simply because he’s devout. Which brings us back to not being unequally yoked.

Yes, I agree. We should keep the unequally yoked part in mind– an extremely important piece– and I think it’s also pertinent to reiterate that is why I believe women should only marry a man who shares her faith. And he should be a hair more zealous than she.

Here is how I view it: I would rather be with a zealot who is more zealous than myself because it is always easier to accommodate going a bit further than complete denial. For instance, if my husband told me that I was NOT allowed to cover, it would piss me off. That would be more difficult to deal with than my husband stating he’d like to see me cover more often outside of church. I could work with that.

I thought DA was the self-appointed court jester of the tradosphere, same as he is of the manosphere; doesn’t he have a self-made ‘Kick Me!’ sign on his back, for Svar, or I, or anyone else to respond to?

Are there really that many situations in which relatively zealous men are going to tell their wives to be less zealous? I mean, do such husbands really object to things like head-covering, or just think it’s unnecessary but shrug it off?

I don’t really doubt that it can cause issues, but my intuition would say that it’s less about who is more zealous (and zeal isn’t exactly a one-dimensional thing) and more about how big the gap is.

Wait a minute! Will S. is right!! DA is a masochist; he is the Eeyore of these parts of the ‘net. For those of you guys who used to or still read Roissy, remember how Roissy would trash DA and DA would come back everyday to get some more?

Lacey, David Collard, I am actually being nice to DA by being mean to him. It’s strange, it’s twisted, but that’s how it is.

Will S., imagine someone kicking a small donkey with it’s tail nailed to it’s ass. How would that make you feel? I mean you’d laugh a little bit, but then you’d start to feel bad. That’s how Lacey, David Collard, and I suspect the rest of the readers/commenters feel. For their sake, it’s best to stop making fun of DA.

Are there really that many situations in which relatively zealous men are going to tell their wives to be less zealous? I mean, do such husbands really object to things like head-covering, or just think it’s unnecessary but shrug it off?

I doubt it, but what I was referring to was when a man is LESS zealous than the wife. Hence why I mentioned some problems that could arise if a man marries a zealot, and he may not be one.

@ Svar: that’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout, the old days when Roissy was still worth reading. DA kept coming back for more abuse, and always with the self-deprecating, “I’m such a loser, no girls will ever talk to me” schtick, all the time. He was his own self-parody. It’s a shame he makes sensible points and bright, if liberal, comments here now; it was much more fun back when he was just ‘I suck; kick me!’, in essence.

On the zealotry thing, my situation is unusual because I have tended to be more zealous than my wife. I am the one who has said no to some intimate activities. I tend to be the stickler for the letter of the law. I have calmed down a bit in recent years.

Yeah, the old posts and comment threads by Roissy were hilarious. Roissy is the kind of guy who goes straight for the neck and then finishes off by pissing on the limp and dead egos of his enemies. Lulzstatic.

Thing is, I, just like many people suspect that he is using one or more ghost writers, since about last year or so. Maybe a little before that. However, it is obvious when it is Roissy. He recently coined the hilarious term “Ellis Island Schmaltz-fuckers”, an anti-Semitic slur*. Just as funny as when the guys over at VDare use $PLC instead of SPLC(a liberal Jewish activist group. There are so many of those in Amerika. They call themselves the Southern Poverty Law Center. It’s funny because they don’t know shit about the South and in the words of Ronnie Van Zant, “A Southern man don’t ’em[him] around”).

@ Svar: Ever since Roissy started fighting with Lady Raine, and lost, when she exposed him, I think that’s when his blog became a team effort, with hardly any input from him, any more, and went downhill from there, alas. It’s still occasionally funny, and interesting, but not that often. I only visit there once in a blue moon now, whereas three years ago, I visited every day.

Too many men at Roissy trying to prove how cruel they are to their female sex partners. I am not a lamb myself, but they disgusted me. And creeps trying to seduce other men’s wives. I learned a bit, then I moved on.

It’s a shame he makes sensible points and bright, if liberal, comments here now; it was much more fun back when he was just ‘I suck; kick me!’, in essence.

The head vampire doesn’t like it when I derail the conversations to whine and complain about myself. Coincidentally, many other commenters didn’t like it either, and eventually after a while, one grows tired of repeating the negative, but truthful things about one’s self. I am a loser, no girls will talk to me, but it really does burn to say it on a repetitive basis over and over again.

As a number of people have noted, Roissy isn’t the same place as it used to be, and while it’s been well established that the blog’s author has changed, one should also note the commenters have changed as well with many well known characters from that era simply moving on to other blogs*, or out of the PUAsphere entirely. So we have an entirely different dynamic with new authors and a new comment base.

*I bailed on that place after my dad died as my attention whoring and self-deprecation went to the extremes with little return on value, and I really couldn’t stomach being there anymore. I ended up following FB and being dragged into the vampire coven when Alte started blogging. I really can’t stomach this part of the internet as well as I used to, and reading it everyday can eat away at one’s self-esteem if one isn’t in the prime demographic.

I would rather be with a zealot who is more zealous than myself because it is always easier to accommodate going a bit further than complete denial.

This.

On the other hand, his tendency toward laxity is something that makes it easier to be in submission to him, overall. The really zealous guys tend to be very Korrekt and they wouldn’t tolerate my sheer weirdness, or offer me the same intellectual freedom. He’s like a relaxed zealot, which seems to fit me very well.

I suppose that if he were a strict zealot I’d be dead by now, after pushing out my 11th child and bleeding to death in surgery. He would have them say a Mass in my name, and propose my canonization. Hmm…. I’m thinking there’s a downside to everything.

I suppose that if he were a strict zealot I’d be dead by now, after pushing out my 11th child and bleeding to death in surgery. He would have them say a Mass in my name, and propose my canonization. Hmm…. I’m thinking there’s a downside to everything.

Actually, I think he cares for you. I think he is afraid of what happens to you when you are pregnant — as both times you have truly been knocked around — and wants to take the responsibility for keeping you well away from your tender conscience.

You can have zeal for the LORD and compassion and even (horrors) a sense of humour, you know.

I suppose that if he were a strict zealot I’d be dead by now, after pushing out my 11th child and bleeding to death in surgery. He would have them say a Mass in my name, and propose my canonization. Hmm…. I’m thinking there’s a downside to everything.

You totally forgot the part about “while marrying my sister or best friend”. If you’re going to go drama, go all the way, yes?

The really zealous guys tend to be very Korrekt and they wouldn’t tolerate my sheer weirdness, or offer me the same intellectual freedom.

We run into this from time to time, Alte. I developed a curiosity about Mormonism at one point and started reading some stuff and my husband objected with, “Have you mastered Orthodox Christianity yet?”

It doesn’t happen often but it has a few times over the years. In general, he’s pretty laid back about my intellectual pursuits as evidenced by his almost total disinterest in what I do online, but if he fears I’m wandering somewhere “dangerous” he makes sure his reservations are duly noted.

@ Svar: in Belgium, and the Netherlands, there still are some monasteries brewing ‘abbij’, or ‘abbey’, beers; these are quite interesting, as in Belgian style, they don’t use hops, but other flavouring ingredients, and they range from regular strength up to 9-10% alcohol. (I’m not Catholic, but I am a drinker; a Reformed drinker, not a reformed drinker, heh heh. I suppose I could also call myself a catholic drinker, while not a Catholic drinker, because my alcohol tastes are universal: I like beer, whisky, wine, liqueurs, gin, etc.)

And of course, the Benedictines still make liqueur, as do the monks of Chartreuse.

but if he fears I’m wandering somewhere “dangerous” he makes sure his reservations are duly noted.

Yeah, but my husband does that, too. Like when we first started dating I was attending a Pentecostal church. He went with me a few times, and said, “It’s a nice church, but it’s just not a real church, is it? We should go to Mass together, instead.” And that was that.

With Korrektheit I meant more religious strictness beyond that. Catholicism involves a lot rules and rituals, and he’s sort of ho-hum on a lot of that stuff. Like he eats breakfast before Mass on Sunday while I fast from sundown the day before, he acts like it’s not a big deal if he forgets to abstain from meat on Fridays, only goes to confession during Lent (and only because I nag him), likes for me to wear short hair, likes Mass in the vernacular, etc. But if I look at this definition of a zealot:

attend church nearly every week, read their bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples

Then he qualifies as one. I wouldn’t say he’s lukewarm. He takes his religion very seriously, and actively practices it and teaches it to the children, he just doesn’t agree with some aspects of Church teaching. It’s complicated.

I think he’s solidly Catholic, but he feels a deep kinship to the Prots that a Real Zealot doesn’t feel. He mocks traditionalists who refer to Protestants as “the others”, and he’s pretty sure that Catholics and Prots have an equal chance of getting to Heaven, for instance. And although he’s solidly anti-abortion and anti-divorce, he does think that NFP is orthodox and that even contraception should be allowed for health reasons as long as it doesn’t involve abortifacients. As it stands, I’m more zealous than he is, but not by much. There is a whole group of people in the RCC who would consider me a wild-eyed liberal. LOL

I do think Catholics are more likely to reach Heaven because of our access to the sacraments, especially Confession.

My wife often says she is sceptical of some Church teachings, but she rarely specifies which.

I probably depart most from really conservative Catholics on evolution. On the other hand, I think there is far too much egalitarianism, indifferentism and humanism in Rome at present. I am suspicious of the Personalism and general philosophy of the last pope.

Well, many nuns have short hair, so it’s obviously not unorthodox. I think the Ultra Orthodox opinion is that women should have their heads covered at all times, either with long hair or a scarf, and a cloth covering in the presence of the Eucharist.

Well, his main disagreement with Pentecostalism is that they don’t have the Eucharist, so going to church there doesn’t really count. Of course, Prots have the sacraments of baptism and marriage, but they’re missing out on the others. So obviously he does recognize that there is some difference, and sees Catholicism as #1, but he’s not as zealous about it as many.

My husband believes in evolution, too. But so do I, so we don’t really differ there. As I said, I’m a liberal. ;-)

I think he’s sort of a natural Conservative Christian, and he just doesn’t give all this stuff as much thought as I do. He reads Catholic-y things sometimes, and discusses homilies with me, etc. but he doesn’t understand my “nerdy obsession” with religion. That’s the main reason I would consider myself more zealous: I’m fascinated by this topic. At some point he just gets bored talking about God and wants to go read Dilbert.

No, the Church does not support contraception at all. NFP is orthodox (according to most, but not all Catholics) for spacing births, but you’re not supposed to have a contraceptive mentality when using it. It’s complicated.

My husband is the most devout man I know, so the fact that I’m more devout doesn’t really mean much.

I think it’s mostly that Anglos and Continental Europeans focus more on different “sections” of morality. He’s very big on solidarity and subsidiarity, complementarianism, traditions and rituals, marital fidelity, community, the Mother Church itself (i.e. religious politics), etc. Americans think more about chastity, modesty, and abortion.

There are some Americans who focus on all of the above, insist that evolution no longer be taught in schools, go to anti-gay marriage protests, attend Latin Masses, go to weekly confession, attend daily Masses, practice Eucharistic Adoration, hang out at intersections with abortion signs, refuse to marry non-virgins, have holy water and a shrine at home, etc. and those are the True Zealots. We don’t really reach that ranking.

I actually care about all of those things. I’m not a stickler with modesty(except within Church-women must cover their heads in Church, but I think it’s awesome when girls wear short-shorts, mini-skirts, and tight jeans). As for chastity, I won’t refuse to marry a non-virgin but I refuse to marry any girl that has had even one instance of casual sex. Abortion is flat-out wrong and I refuse to support it, fund it, or commit it(when and if I become a doctor).

As for solidarity and subsidiarity, community, complementarianism, religious politics, traditions and rituals, and marital fidelity, that stuff is all great.

I don’t see what is overly zealous about having holy water and a shrine, going to Latin Mass(I prefer English because I understand English, but Latin is great), or weekly confession. Everything else is too much work. Abortion and gay rights will end soon enough.

So much for staying away from this blog. I couldn’t resist chiming in here…

I plan on telling my sons, the same standards I used in selecting their mother. These are NOT the usual pablum preached at church, “Marry a godly girl who goes to church every Sunday and knows the Word blah blah blah….’. These are much more practical, and some of them I learned the hard way….

These are hardcore but they will REALLY save you a LOT of grief. And a lot of these answers can be learned on the first date, or even before the first date, thus saving you much time and money.

On one item I shall include additional comment. It may seem strange and narrow to limit dating by politics. (Or, so it did to my secular acquaintances.) BUT.. I’ve noticed something. If I meet a person who knows the Bible, shows up at church every Sunday, sings and dances before the Lord and prays and speaks in tongues, and generally seems to be a good Christian overall — and who therefore by all rights should be some sort of conservative — yet, is a flaming liberal instead — most of the time I eventually discover, that person is sexually corrupt! In other words, sexual sin and socialism are linked somehow.

IMMEDIATELY DUMP any girl at the first sign of this. You cannot change her mind or persuade her to repent. Quoting, “Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no, all else comes from the evil one” gets you exactly nowhere. You’ll go crazy trying to figure out when she really means what she says, and when she secretly means the opposite and expects you to magically discern this. You’ll go even crazier trying to figure out how a good solid tithe-paying Christian virgin who is scrupulously honest with every other person and in every other area of life, can be so dishonest in romance — and yet, somehow, not even see it as dishonesty!

At least I got the ring back.

Joanna: “I wonder if the Google search results are because women are more apt to ask for advice and men are not???”

Perhaps. But in my single years I remember rather painfully, I and other good Christian men I knew, were left high and dry and lonely while “Christian” women dated unbeliever men. The reverse happened far, far less often. And people tend to marry whomever they date, so I’m inclined to believe that it’s the Christian women, much more than the men, who step outside the faith to marry.

“And people tend to marry whomever they date, so I’m inclined to believe that it’s the Christian women, much more than the men, who step outside the faith to marry.”

Yes, I agree. This is anecdotal, but I have witnessed on numerous occasions Christian women marrying men who were nominal believers at best all the way down to men who didn’t believe at all. Truthfully, I should probably count myself among the ranks of those women because although I was not a born again believer when I married my husband, I had been raised in the faith and he hadn’t been in a church for most of his life unless it was to attend a wedding or a funeral.

He was in a place of seeking though because of some hard things he was experiencing in his life and family. Because of where I was at the time, I didn’t consider us unequally yoked, but to the outside observer (even to me looking back on it), we definitely were.

I didn’t mean that it is “overly zealous”, but that the zealous Catholics tend to be like that, which is why I don’t consider myself to be a real zealot. I’m a conservative with strong traditionalist leanings.

Svar, by evolution I mean evolution. I am interested enough that I am in Wikipedia articles under my real name.

Alte, apart from a traditional requirement – currently in abeyance – that women cover their heads in church, I am not aware of anything else pertaining to hair and coverings for women in Catholic teaching.

FWIW, I would advise against marrying a girl who listens to advice from everyone except you. Defiitely not a feminist, beyond the tinge of feminism that most young women have, which will likely rub off easily. I would counsel trying to find a virgin, but avoid girls who seem to use this to increase their market value and who are not clearly sexually interested in you. I would also recommend aiming for a pretty one. There is nothing intrinsically Godly about ugly. You should at least find her sexy.

Alte, apart from a traditional requirement – currently in abeyance – that women cover their heads in church, I am not aware of anything else pertaining to hair and coverings for women in Catholic teaching.

Yes, a lot of Catholic zealotry is traditional, but not necessarily doctrinal.

Isn’t that Intelligent Design? Evolution denies that there is any direction to it-it’s just a mechanism for a species to adapt to the ever changing environment. What you believe implies that Evolution has a clear direction, a direction determined by God. That sounds like Intelligent Design to me.

“Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

For that very reason Terri, I would advise any young woman to watch for a man who is more “zealous” than herself. I find it strange that women would step out of faith to marry a guy when a fact exists in plain view:

In Christian marriage, it is the wife who must remember that she must obey. People forget that itty bitty part of marriage.

If you are a Christian and marry a man whose faith– or lack thereof– is contrary to many of the things that you believe in, you are essentially consenting to the obedience of such things. You know about them ahead of time. Why would you consent to obedience in things that are against your beliefs?

For instance, if a Christian woman marries an atheist (it happens), and he says that church attendance is not necessary and therefore you do not go to church as often– you consented to that before marriage, since you must obey as a wife. Why would you do that if you truly care about your faith? Or whether to raise the children Christian– if a husband who does NOT believe says “we’ll let them make their own decisions when they get older” (I’ve heard that many times), you consent to that. Perhaps I am not as romantic because I do not believe that ALL you need is love. Unequally yoked issues can bring about a lot of strife within a marriage that love, attraction, etc. cannot treat.

That is why I’ve said that a husband as the leader in the marriage, should be leading his family and wife to holiness. Why you would knowingly consent to a marriage contrary to that, I don’t know.

That is why I’ve said that a husband as the leader in the marriage, should be leading his family and wife to holiness. Why you would knowingly consent to a marriage contrary to that, I don’t know.

Why, indeed. I agree with you completely. My husband is quite zealous and is the spiritual leader of our home. I was simply pointing out that when I married him I was perfectly content not to go to church and to follow him wherever because I was not a practicing Christian. He was at least seeking the Truth while I was busy rationalizing my rebellious way of living.

I would never, ever, ever advocate a man or woman marry someone who does not believe what they do. Only noting that many people do it. Male and female as Elusive Wapiti noted in his original post.

Perhaps I am not as romantic because I do not believe that ALL you need is love. Unequally yoked issues can bring about a lot of strife within a marriage that love, attraction, etc. cannot treat.

Did I imply that I believed that? I certainly hope not, because I don’t.

Alte: “You mentioned “born again”. I’m fascinated by this concept. Could you (or someone else) write an article about it?’

It’s evangelicalese for a “Conversion Experience”, which can take 2 forms:
(1) A non-Christian becomes a Christian.
(2) A formerly nominal Christian decides to take faith seriously.

As to why the term “born again” is applied to a conversion experience: The Bible says that you must be “born again” of water and of Spirit to enter the kingdom.

Catholics, by long tradition, normally baptize infants who are born into the church, so the “born of water and Spirit” command is taken to have been fulfilled in their case. If such a person goes through life as a nominal believer, and later on decides to get zealous, that’s called a “Second Conversion” in Catholic-speak.

However, in the Evangelical world, going by Sola Scriptura, it’s hard to make a case for infant baptism. Baptism is therefore done only when an individual makes a specific, personal commitment to Christ — which can happen at age 5 or age 90. Another way to put it is, Evangelicals don’t consider a person a Christian at all, til they have a personal conversion experience — being “born again” — and they baptize people at that time.

I suspect it’s because Europeans don’t have as much of a blatant “single mother problem”, and that their welfare state has somewhat mopped up the problem. In America, single motherhood is seen as a “failure” by traditionalists, and the traditionalists are simply coming up with ways on how to solve that problem and prevent women from falling into that trap.

Will S, Alte and Svar: I think “biere d’abbaye” are beers where the abbey has leased out the right to use the name (big brands like Leffe, Grimbergen etc.) and that “biere de trappistes” is where the monks brew the beer themselves (only 6-7 smallish breweries).

Ah; I had known about secular breweries producing abbey-style beers, but I hadn’t realized there was a difference in the French terminology (in terms of two different names, signifying the main difference); I thought “abbey beers” referred to the style, regardless of whether an abbey or secular brewery made it. I stand corrected. Thanks!

[…] Wapati has referred back to a post and looks beyond the data — that marrying a woman of fervent faith and having a bunch of kids leads to a happy marriage. If there is one thing this article suggests, […]